Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0628th
  Defense−0.0391st
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense39.9%23rd
  Defense35.9%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2573rd
  Defense+1.2049th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0412th
  Defense−0.0486th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1857th
  Defense−0.0291st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.2%10th
  Defense40.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.8%61st
  Defense28.4%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.416th
  Defense2.5187th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.4%9th
  Defense24.2%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense2.4%72nd

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2015

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Temple allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   PSU
2. W
   CIN
3. W
   MASS
4. W
   CLT
5. W
   TULN
6. W
   UCF
7. W
   ECU
8. L
   ND
9. W
   SMU
10. L
    USF
11. W
    MEM
12. W
    CONN
13. L
    HOU
14. L
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2015

1. P.J. WalkerQB455 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 51st of 205 QBs
   1.66WAR0.95 to 2.39
2. Jahad ThomasRB285 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 22nd of 333 RBs
   0.48WAR0.24 to 0.74
3. Robby AndersonWR102 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 42nd of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.10 to 0.39
4. Ventell BryantWR57 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 84th of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.28
5. Austin JonesPK24 plays · +0.342 pts/play · 28th of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
6. Brandon ShippenWR34 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 286th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Alex StarzykP62 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 59th of 92 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.15
8. John ChristopherWR29 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 331st of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Temple's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40640685th of 128Roster talent: 406, 85th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015074th of 128Recruiting: 150, 74th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%85th of 127Returning production: 49%, 85th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.0+6.054th of 128SP+ rating: +6.0, 54th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Temple's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.29 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at SMUQ4 5:06 4th & 1 at TEM 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. vs NDQ4 4:45 4th & 2 at ND 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. vs MEMQ3 13:53 4th & 1 at TEM 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at MASSQ4 14:33 4th & 3 at MASS 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. vs PSUQ3 6:23 4th & 2 at PSU 23, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs PSUQ3 1:28 4th & 7 at PSU 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at CINQ4 12:01 4th & 1 at TEM 21, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs PSUQ4 5:41 4th & 1 at PSU 13, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

13th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Temple's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   PSU
2. W

   CIN
3. W

   MASS
4. W

   CLT
5. W

   TULN
6. W

   UCF
7. W

   ECU
8. L

   ND
9. W

   SMU
10. L

    USF
11. W

    MEM
12. W

    CONN
13. L

    HOU
14. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Temple's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+1.85
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.04

Game by game

• PSUW 27-10 vs PSU15% → 99%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +54, Possession & field position +2
• CINW 34-26 at CIN28% → 96%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MASSW 25-23 at MASS70% → 86%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +33, Clock +3
• CLTW 37-3 at CLT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• TULNW 49-10 vs TULN83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• UCFW 30-16 vs UCF88% → 98%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 24-14 at ECU51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• NDL 20-24 vs ND20% → 6%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SMUW 60-40 at SMU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• USFL 23-44 at USF58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −2
• MEMW 31-12 vs MEM44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• CONNW 27-3 vs CONN83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Clock −1
• HOUL 13-24 at HOU31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• TOLL 17-32 at TOL49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Temple's side.

Closest call

SMU 20-45 TEM (2016) - Temple dropped to a 2.0% win probability before pulling it out.